Karnataka Court June 1985 Judgments
Venkateswara Minerals, Firm and anr. Vs. Jugalkishore Chiranjitlal, Fi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant14; ILR1985KAR2992; 1985(2)KarLJ319
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal by the defendant has been preferred against the decree and judgment dt. August 23, 1975 made in O.S. No. 10 of 1971 by the Civil Judge, Bellary.2. Briefly stated the facts are these :Plaintiff is a registered firm and so too the defendants. They are carrying on business as mineral dealers. On Feb. 1, 1968 the defendants-firm (collectively called 'the defendant) entered into an agreement with the plaintiff at Madras to sell 600 tonnes of red-oxide at Rs. 50/- per. tonne F.O.R. Torangallu, Hospet, Bellary. In consideration for the sale of redoxide, plaintiff paid Rs. 30,000/- to the defendant. The delivery was required to be made within 45 days from the ready stock available at Bellary. The time was considered as of the essence of the agreement. If the goods were not delivered within 45 days, plaintiff could ask for refund of the purchase price. The defendant was having its head office at Madras and a Branch Office at Bellary. The Head Office sent inst...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmappa Vs. Kousalya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2664
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1.This Re-vision Petition is by a tenant who has suffered an order of eviction of the Munsiff, Mandya in theproceedings initiated under the Karnataka Rent Control Act (herein-after referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent-landlord presented the eviction Petition on two grounds available to her under the Act. One was that the premises in question was bone fide required for use of her son to start his business. It was pleaded that the building was 50 years old and it has only acountry tile roof. It was further pleaded that the landlord's son was at loggerheads with his father who was a fairly wealthy person and the two could not get on together in joint family business and therefore, they intend to start a business for their son away from the family business carriedon by her husband and the second son. The Petitioner-tenant denied that the building was old, that it required immediate demolition and that it was required for bona fide use of the landlord. He, i...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Ksrtc Vs. Annappa Vaidya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2979
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal is by the Karnataka Stale Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and its Officers and is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 20-8-1984 made in M.C. (MVC) No.203 of 1981 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dakshina-Kannada, Mangalore, granting to the parents a compensation of Rs. 22,800/- for the death of their 12 year old son in a motor-accident.2. The unfortunate incident occurred at 4.15 P.m. on 29-12-1980 at the pilgrim centre ofDharmasthala in South Kanara District involving appellant's stage-carriage Bus MYG 5700. The driver of the bus, it would appear, had parked the bus and had gone to the appellant's office at Dharmasthala to transact some official business. At that time, one Sarvotham, an artisan working in the KSRTC entered the bus and drove the bus within the Temple premises atDharmasthala. He drove the bus negligently and hit the boy, Raghavendra, who was walking along the road. The boy succumbed to the severe injuries....
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Nagamallappa Vs. B.J. Lalitha and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2283; 1985(2)KarLJ268
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition under section 482, of the Criminal P.C. (the Code) is directed against the order dated 11-11-1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Mysore in Cr.R.P. No. 24/1983, dismissing the revision petition and confirming the order dated 16-2-1983 passed by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate First Class, T Narasipur, in C. Mis. No. 4/1981, granting a monthly maintenance of Rs. 100/- to the first respondent and Rs. 75/- to the second respondent from the date of filing the petition with cost of Rs. 150/- on an application filed by the respondents against the petitioner under S. 125 of the Code. 2. I shall refer to the parties in the course of this order as they were arrayed in the Court of the first instance for the sake of convenience. 3. The petition for maintenance was grounded on the following allegations. The first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage between them was performed on 27-4-1978. Through the wed-lock the second...
Tag this Judgment!N. Chandrika Vs. Chairman, Selection Committee
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR998
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This Petition is the second round of litigation by the petitioner in this Court. She was an applicant for a seat in the 1 Year M.B.B.S. Course in one of the Government Medical Colleges or in Colleges where Government had control over the seats. Her application related to the academic year 1984-85. The petitioner, Kumari N. Chandrika, belongs to what is known as 'Stanika Caste'. That caste, under Government Order bearing No. SWL 12 TBS 77 dated 22nd February, 1977, is listed as one of the backward castes at Sl. No. 114 for purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution. It is needless for this Court to repeat that such listing entitled her to claim a seat within the quota reserved for backward castes. But after being interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted under the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1984, her application was rejected to be considered for a seat in the quota reserved for backward castes on the sole ground tha...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Telephone Industries Vs. Jayaram Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2967
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 1859 of 1979 by M/s. Indian Telephone Industries Limited, (Judgment Debtor), is directed against a portion of the order dated 7-3-1979 passedby Second Additional Munsiff, Bangalore, in Execution Case No. 1031 of 1978, on his file, directing the parties to file objections to the award filed in the Court in Original Suit No. 91 of 1969 and further directing that after hearing the parties, the Court should pass such order, as it deems fit on the award filed by the Arbitrator. Civil Revision Petition No. 1334 of 1979 by the decree-holder is directed against the same order dismissing the execution on the ground that the decree passed was a nullity and was one passed by a Court without jurisdiction.2. Jayaram Reddy - the decree-holder - filed a suit in Original Suit No. 91 of 1969 against the judgment-debtor under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator filed the award in the Court. Th...
Tag this Judgment!D. Venkatesan Vs. P. Lalitha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2611
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. The petitioner wife has obtained an order of maintenance against the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in the Court below. She is executing that order contending that the amount awarded has not been or is not being paid to her in accordance with the direction contained in the order. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, V Court, Bangalore, has issued a levy warrant to recover from the petitioner in all a sum of Rs. 5,500/- which was the amount claimed as arrears by the wife.2. It may be noted that the petitioner's husband is a resident of Madras City and is presently working as a Technical Assistant in the I.I.T at Madras. Challenging the warrant issued for levying the amount due, he contends that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue a levy warrant against him who is not residing within his jurisdiction and further contends that, even otherwise, he should have been heard before issuing that levy warrant, so that he could have had his say in the...
Tag this Judgment!Sampath Raj Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3481
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is the purchaser of a heavy motor vehicle bearing No. APA 1855 registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, has challenged the demand made by the R.T.O., Bangalore, dated 8th June 1978 as per Exhibit-A and the order of the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, dated 18th September 1979 as per Exhibit-B. By Exhibit-A, the petitioner is called upon to pay tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 thereinafter referred to as `the Act') amounting to Rs. 4,800/- due in respect of the said vehicle for the period 1-7 1977 to 30-6-1978.2. An appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, against the said demand. It was contended before the appellate authority that the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner from its previous owner one Abdul Razack during May 1977 and that the same was not in a good condition and the Fitness Certificat...
Tag this Judgment!Kishenlal Vs. Gissoolal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2943
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by Kishenlal (Respondent No. 3 in the Court of Civil Judge) against the order dated 31-3-1978 passed by the District Judge, Kolar in M.A. 20/76 reversing the order dated 6-3-76 passed by the Civil Judge, Kolar inI.C. 4/67 dismissing the petition filed under Section 6 of the Insolvency Act.2. Respondent No. 2-Nathumal Satia executed a mort-gage in favour of Respondent No. 1's sonUdaychand for Rs. 6000/- on 27-9-1963. Respondent No. 2 also executed a simple mortgage in favour of Respondent No. 1-Gissoolal for Rs. 16,000/- on 24- 4-1974 as perEx.D1.3. According to Respondent No. 1, Respondent No.2 Satia executed a pronote-Ex.D2 for Rs. 3,500/- in his favour on 30th April, 1964. According to him, the Respondent No. 2 borrowed again Rs. 1,200/- from him on 22-6 64 as per Ex.P2. Notwithstanding the several demands made,Respondent No.2 did not pay the said pronote debts and mort-gage debts. According to Respondent No. 1 - G.Gissoolal, Satia-Respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhara Setty Vs. Thirukappa Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2653
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This Revision Petition is by the tenant (by Legal Representatives) under Section 115 of the C.P.C. It is directed against the order of the Learned District Judge, Chitradurga, in CRP. No. 27/1980 made in exercise of his jurisdiction underSub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts leading to the revision before the Learned District Judge may be stated and they are as follows : The tenant is inoccupation of a corner premises on Shimoga-Harihar Road in Harihar Town as a tenant under the landlords who are Respondents in this Court. That premises measures 8 x 4/8 indicating that it is angular, probably triangular, in shape. The tenant took it on lease sometime in the year 1973 and continued thereafter as a statutory tenant. The landlords who occupied the rest of the building presented a Petition in the Court of the Munsiff at Davanagere seeking eviction of the tenant from the Petition ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »